Well, as I said that's valid
OK. Good.
but I think if a politician says they're not going to legislate something on the basis of their religion moving forward, their religiosity shouldn't be the basis of suspicion. It wasn't for Singh and nobody (aside from far-right bloggers) said he would be compromised on foreign policy.
Their religiosity is the basis of suspicion? How do you figure? It is Scheer’s lack of an answer to a question you say is valid that is the basis of suspicion. And, as another poster mentioned, his responses to the religious-right groups, makes up the “suspicion”.
I also think being of the religious-right... fighting against the rights of citizens to marry and for women to have bodily-autonomy rights in the past should actually be a reason for people not to vote for a person. I think it should automatically exclude Scheer, and his party, from getting any votes.
So, yes... it’s a fair question.
If you can tell me where Singh has, or would, legislate based on his religious views I would be happy to throw him and the NDP under the secular bus too.
Home
Contact
Login
Register